- (1.) In this petition filed under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the order dated 25.1.2012, Annexure P. 6 whereby the petitioner has been treated as ineligible by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation for allotment of tender for carrying out civil/mechanical/electrical works at different stations under Punjab State office of Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Briefly, the facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Sole proprietor of petitioner-company Sukhwinder Singh is a contractor carrying out the work of underground storage tanks and other civil works with various organizations. In November 2011, the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation issued a tender notice for selecting contractors for various Divisional offices in Punjab Region. The petitioner submitted his bid separately for Amritsar, Sangrur and Shimla Divisional Offices by depositing earnest money. As per condition No. 2 in the tender notice, Annexure P. 1, the contractor should have satisfactorily completed a single order directly from any Central or State government organization and executed a work order for construction of pipeline work/tank/pump installation. The said work could also be carried out from private Oil/Gas/Petrochemical companies. The petitioner had carried out a similar work for the relevant period with M/s Metro Tyres Limited-a Petro-chemical company, which was manufacturing synthetic rubber tyres and had successfully executed a work order to the tune of Rs. 11 lacs as against the requirement of similar work order of minimum value of Rs. 3 lacs. The petitioner was later informed orally by the officials of the respondent-Corporation that his work order was from private organization and hence the same was not considered suitable. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 to whom tender has been allotted, is a firm which has no experience at all. The said firm is merely an advertising firm and does not at all fulfill the requisite parameters. It does not even have a Vendor number. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation Annexure P. 5 to the respondent-Corporation. Having received no response, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 1396 of 2012, which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court being premature as the impugned order dated 25.1.2012 had not been passed as on that date. The petitioner was, however, given liberty to file fresh writ petition on the same cause of action vide order dated 24.1.2012. In the meantime, the impugned order dated 25.1.2012, Annexure P. 6 was passed rejecting the representation of the petitioner stating that the work executed by the petitioner did not fulfill the qualifying criteria i.e. of a Petro-chemical company. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition impugning the order dated 25.1.2012, Annexure P. 6.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied for three stations namely Amritsar, Sangrur and Shimla and as per eligibility condition in the notice inviting tenders, the petitioner had appended the certificate, Annexure P. 2 issued by M/s Metro Tyres Limited which was a Petro-chemical company and thus fulfilled the eligibility condition as the petitioner had performed similar work like construction of NAPHTHA and HSD tanks for the said company.
(3.) Opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that in so far as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, they have been disqualified by the Corporation as documents submitted by them were found to be forged. Justifying the selection of respondent No. 5, it was urged that respondent No. 5 had been working with the Corporation since 2007 and had been allotted Vendor Code IOC and in such a situation, there was no mala fides on the part of the Corporation to award contract to respondent No. 5. Learned counsel had also produced the documents attached by respondent No. 5, a perusal of which shows that respondent No. 5 had been doing similar work for the Corporation since 2007.;